Posted on 05/31/2024 1:01:34 PM PDT by Red Badger
Translation: We are worried about them.
What is the ideological bent of IEEFA? Who funds it?
Consider the source. A quick review of the IEEEEEEEEE reveals that they mostly profane just about anything that is not carbon neutral, advancing climate change and the like. Every random staff bio I looked at shows some element of econut. I wonder who funds them? I wonder if they are a not for profit? I wonder if they have tax returns? I wonder if they reveal their supporters? I wonder if they are telling the whole cloth truth or just the convenient one?
It looks as if somebody’s ox is being gored a bit here. They’re concerned about the modulars drawing funds away from development of “renewables” that aren’t ready to pull their weight yet, and about how slow those reactors are to field in the face of environmental obstacles they themselves are helping to throw up.
The cost of the SMR will drop once in production. Nuclear is the only technology with a chance of meeting carbon reduction targets, assuming one is worried about that.
And yet, there’s these little tubes in the sea called nucular submarines, who seem to do okay with their little hot motors.
BS!
the US navy operates over 70 “small” reactors accident free
for over 60 years.
This article is just “Karen” hand wringing.
You know if you factor women out of the voting picture
we would be far better off.
The company’s Natrium reactor demonstration project—the nation’s first commercial advanced reactor of its kind—would be built on land in Wyoming near one of the state’s retiring coal plants. Kemmerer Power Station Unit 1 would operate as a 345-MW sodium-cooled reactor in conjunction with molten salt–based energy storage.
my thought exactly. My granddaughter will go into submarine service after graduating from US Naval Academy and going to Nuclear Power School for the next two years.
"Investment in SMRs will take resources away from carbon-free and lower-cost renewable technologies"
As if nuclear belched carbon, for one thing. But regardless of that, some form of energy generation has to be "base-load", supplying power when their precious solar and wind boondoggles fail. Like at NIGHT, and when there's too little wind, (or too MUCH). That means either nuclear or fossil fuels, or hydro.
It is wind and solar that are incapable of supplying energy for the world.
This Population Control Marxism detests any energy source that can sustain a healthy, growing population.
"...IEEFA’s market-based research shows how the rise of the new energy economy, where renewable energy sources are steadily eroding reliance on fossil fuels, makes financial sense for investors, governments, businesses, communities and ratepayers..."
And there we have it.
“steadily eroding” my ass.
Exactly.
putting young men and women together at close quarters underwater for long periods of time — makes an ordinary person go hmm. what could go wrong?
but it appears they have been doing for a couple decades without any incidents that have been so bad — that they made for big splashy headlines.
so I there is no problem I guess.
Hello my name is Achmed Smith and I woould like to purchase 100 of your compact reactors...tell me does that come a full compliment of radioactive material or is that extra?...fine, fine, I’ll put that on my Iranian Amex and can you’ll ship those to a warehouse in Afghanistan? Perfect.
Invest accordingly.
I had an activity a few years ago with a company called NuScale.
They are into all of this.
My work there was unrelated to their program.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.